Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Reliability of telepsychiatry assessments: Subjective versus observational ratings

  • Wake Forest University
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well

Abstract

Geriatric patients in underserved areas could benefit from the use of telecommunications to expand access to mental health services. It is important to determine the clinical limitations of using videoconferencing for psychiatric assessments, particularly in the elderly. The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that videoconferencing ratings based on visual observations of behavior would be less reliable than ratings based on patients' verbal reports of symptoms. Videoconferencing assessments of 30 geriatric patients using low-bandwidth (ISDN) equipment were compared to gold standard face-to-face assessments. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was dichotomized into subjective items based on patients' verbal reports and observational items based on visual ratings of behavior. Reliability of the BPRS subjective items was consistently higher than for the observational items. Future studies should emphasize the accuracy of telemedicine ratings that require visual observation of behavior, which is crucial to clinical assessment of psychogeriatric conditions.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 66-71 (6 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology (Volume 14, Issue 2)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 2001

Publication status

Published - 2001

ISSN

0891-9887

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 0034970335
  • PubMed: 11419569
  • ORCID: /0000-0001-5035-7858/work/51379524
  • Scopus: 0034970335

Publication metrics

Metrics

SciVal
FWCI
1.23
SciVal
Author count
4
SciVal
citations
35
SciVal
Paper percentile
80
Scopus
citations
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.25
Fractional count
3
Fractional count
0.75
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1

PlumX, opens in new tab

Citation count
45
Captures
33